slackbastard

From the Department of Talking With The Taxman About Poetry:

A dose of libertarianism would enhance our democracy
Tony Moore
The Australian
October 5, 2009

Social democracy

In theory (according to Tony): “Social democracy ensures collective intervention in the marketplace to enhance structural equality and advance the full development of our potential as human beings”. In practice, social democracy is as social democracy does.

Libertarianism

As for ‘libertarianism’, while its contemporary adherents may well “cultivate a sceptical attitude” to the state, its roots are in anarchism, and the amplification of that bad attit00d into a political philosophy seeking the overthrow or dismantling of ‘the state’.

On the origins of the term ‘libertarian’, see ‘150 years of Libertarian’, Anarchist Writers, December 11, 2008. On the origins of ‘social democracy’, see, ‘Radicals, Exiles and Socialist Beginnings’, Chapter 1, The Slow Burning Fuse: The lost history of the British Anarchists, John Quail (Paladin Books, London, 1978):

…One measure of the differences between the [Manhood Suffrage League, est.1875] and its predecessor [Democratic and Trades Alliance Association, est. 1874], however, lies in the more positive attitude to the Paris Commune which caused the League to come into being. Fairly advanced Radicals like Bradlaugh, for example, baulked at the ‘unconstitutional’ nature of the Commune. He was reported as saying in a speech that ‘The Commune asked for the recognition and consolidation of the Republic. But he denied their right to do it by force of arms ( … ).’ Radicals might be sickened at the slaughter – some 30,000 people were massacred when the Commune was crushed – but for them the Commune was not a heroic beginning of a new world. The Manhood Suffrage League thought differently. Kitz writes: ‘Freed from obstruction and opposition, we cordially cooperated with our foreign comrades in holding an international meeting at the Cleveland Hall to celebrate the Commune. It was a most enthusiastic demonstration and marked the beginning of the revival’ [i.e. of socialism]. A large number of English working men attended. But whether because of the incomplete commitment to revolution of the League or the pressure of new ventures, by 1877 Kitz was no longer secretary of the Manhood Suffrage League. He mentions no particular break in his memoirs, so it is likely that he retained a connection with it that gradually atrophied over the years. Certainly by 1877 Kitz was working for the formation of a specifically socialist, revolutionary and internationalist movement in London. The international element was important. As he says ‘the socialist movement in England owes its origins largely to the propagandist zeal of foreign workmen’. More specifically, they were German exiles. Kitz spoke fluent German and was in close contact with them. The Social Democratic Party was growing in Germany and was an increasingly influential example internationally. It should not be assumed, however, that ‘social democracy’ meant then what it means now. Kitz was committed to revolutionary rather than electoral action and by his use of the phrase he clearly meant a revolutionary democratic socialism. The distinction was between a total social democracy and a partial political democracy. At that time ‘social democracy’ was not reducible to parliamentary reformism.

See also : The Radical Tradition: A Study in Modern Revolutionary Thought, Richard Gombin (1979). On The Paris Commune, see : ‘Peter Kropotkin and People’s Uprisings: From the Paris Commune to Gwangju’, George Katsiaficas, 2002 (PDF).

Orstralian social democracy

In Australia in 2009, however, ‘social democracy’ — despite various rhetorical flourishes (see, for example, From wise counsel good works shall come, Greg Combet, Arena Magazine, December 2002) — is largely reducible to parliamentary reformism. Moore imagines a happy marriage between ‘social democracy’ and ‘libertarianism’ which: “[t]aken together… can promote alter[n]ative ways for us [to] re-imagine the old Westminster public service as a democratic commons more accountable to grassroots communities”. Sadly, “[m]any Australians, especially in traditional Labor areas, have lost faith in the capacity of government to deliver even the most basic services, and restoring faith in the public is a key challenge for the Left”.

At which point, I hope I’m excused my impertinence, but I feel compelled to add:

• “Re-imagin[ing] the old Westminster public service as a democratic commons more accountable to grassroots communities” sounds rather like a recipe for a ‘democratic state’;
• if many have lost faith in Labor, this may be a result of some experience of its policies;
• “restoring faith in the public” is one thing — restoring faith in Labor, quite another.

In any case, according to Moore: “Wariness of the state has deep roots in the Western and Australian Left, though it has found less fertile ground in the ALP”.

Which — when you think about it, as I and others are cursed to do — kinda makes sense, especially given that the ALP is a political party whose explicit aim is to form governments.

As for the former, I’m unconvinced: ‘anti-statist’ perspectives certainly have roots in the ‘Western Left’, but on my reading, the Australian Left has, as a whole, taken a contrary view. Thus, while William Morris may have been “appalled by the Marxist and Fabian obsession with the state as the agent of reform or revolution” (and critical of the Webbs in particular), and while the IWW may have “advocated a syndicalist socialism based on unionism”[?], their hopes and aspirations were crushed by labourism on the one hand and Bolshevism/Communism on the other.

As for the rest of Moore’s account — which proceeds by way of the Sydney intellectual Left / the Push / the Libertarian Society / John Anderson; the sexual and cultural revolution; the critique of managerialism; state reformation under Whitlam (with BONUS! free education — dismantled under Dawkins) / and again under Hawke/Keating / privatisation/corporatisation of state services — it terminates in an appeal to the young.

Of sorts.

Thus “we on the Left” should make the state nicer: accountable, democratic, decentralised, open to “citizen participation”. By the same token, the ALP should be nicer too. In this respect, Moore notes that the “ALP does have a counter-tradition. Many of its founding generation were practical in the face of business indifference to their needs, and set up mutual building societies so they could borrow for a home, or co-operatives for the provision of food.”

Conclusion

Such social service institutions were controlled by members living locally rather than unseen bureaucrats or arrogant ministers in far-flung capitals. Just as Labor has come to appreciate the value of markets to economic prosperity, so too can it enlarge its concept of the commons beyond the old colonial idea of the crown, ministers and public service. Whereas government services such as schools and police in the US and Britain are often accountable to local communities through direct or municipal elections, in Australia the crown dispatched its officers from the centre to administer a people who could not be trusted. Here a shift to a republic becomes important as a means of enhancing democratic accountability and citizenship.

The Rudd government should build on the governance work of Carmen Lawrence and John Faulkner and accompany the campaign for a republic with democratic reforms to the operation of parliaments and quangos. Perhaps we should consider the election of public boards and significant local officials. At the very least the Left should debate alternatives to the bureaucratic state that would enhance our say over services that affect our lives.

The Left protests when ministers and officials favour business mates or cruelly lock up refugees, but many of us have a vested interest in the status quo. As compensation for its authoritarian streak, the state has become a generous benefactor to progressives, either employing us to manage its utilities and programs for the marginalised, or making everyone from artists to community groups and scholars jump through hoops of red tape in a scramble for the next grant. But the state is more tar baby than magic pudding, leaving a residue of compromise and passivity on those too dependent on its patronage.

Hmmm. Sounds a bit like ‘libertarian municipalism’ (see : Libertarian Municipalism: An Overview, Murray Bookchin, April 3, 1991). As with Bookchin’s brainchild, there’s a few problems with Moore’s approach.

Can you spot them all?

See also : Democratic Audit of Australia | The Museum of Australian Democracy | The Australian Centre For Fraternalism, Secret Societies and Mateship | The Life and Death of Democracy, John Keane, 2009 | The Society of the Different: Part 1: The Center of the World, Interview with Gustavo Esteva (September 6/7, 2005), In Motion Magazine. On forms of “syndicalist socialism based on unionism” (and anarchism), see : Still fanning the flames: An interview with Michael Schmidt and Lucien van der Walt (by kate), Revolution by the Book, October 15, 2009.

Bonus! Social Democracy For Dummies

Added Bonus!

Sorry to bother you,
Citizen taxman! Continue reading →